Let us start with some answers to your questions.
The term "assault weapon" is a gun control term. It really started in 1988 with Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. Here is his famous quote on the subject:
Interestingly, Sugarmann saw the outline of the law that ultimately was passed and the issues with such a law. This is revealed in the following statement from the same report:
The most revealing part of his statement is this:
The attention placed on these rifles at the time was for two reasons: public confusion and numbers.
Public confusion we've covered.
By numbers, I mean the relative percentage of this style of rifle in civilian hands as compared to other types. Not so many people at the time owned "assault weapons". In other words, the small numbers of people affected by such legislation despite their hue and cry would not be able to deter the attempt. They were nice, juicy, niche targets. Kind of like a weak herd animal that is steered away from the pack and taken down while the majority runs away.
He also saw what the manufacturers would do in such an event of a restriction being passed based on configuration, features, etc: that the makers would obey the law to the letter and offer products functionally identical to the banned item but different enough in appearance to obey the law.
Which is exactly what happened.
Why do I quote a gun controller here? To provide you with the foundation to answer your question of why the law was passed in the first place. The answer is in the first quote and it does revolve around symbolism. Because the average citizen is unaware of the technical differences between the look-alike and the real full-auto and heavily regulated firearm, Sugarmann felt, rightly at the time, that his group and others like it could take advantage of this confusion.
The ban was a test bed law to see how the public would react to such restrictions as the first step in a broader plan. The ultimate goal, especially in the VPC's own statements, was the banning of handguns. They are the only group honest enough to come out and say their ultimate goal was the removal of handguns from the hands of civilians. The Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) was seen as a social experiment to see how far the gun control movement could go in laying the groundwork for this ultimate outcome.
The law also passed in a time when the gun control movement was in its ascendancy. The period from about 1985 to 1996 was the "golden era" of the gun control movement. Civilian machine guns had been cut out of the market in 1986, gun crime was on the rise in several areas, there were no background checks then and people were looking for answers. The gun control took advantage of this public desire for action and was certainly helped along by a variety of incidents. The attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan was one such event and brought the other major gun control group, Handgun Control, Inc., which later became the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence (BC), into being.
The movement reached its peak in the early-and-mid 1990s with the passage of the Brady Background Check bill which introduced background checks and waiting periods on gun sales and culminated with the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban. With the passage of the 1994 AWB, the gun control movement felt they were on a roll and could only continue the momentum.
Journalists agreed too as evidenced by the following:
Which answers quite succinctly why the law was passed.
Unfortunately for them, the American people had other ideas.
The outcome of the passage of the 1994 AWB delivered Congress into the hands of the Republicans in 1996 for the first time in 40 years as stated by former President Bill Clinton himself. If you look at timelines, 1994 was the high point for gun control in the United States. As far as they were concerned, they were on a roll. They didn't expect what happened in 1996 and by then, they were in retreat and just didn't realize it. While the AWB was focus, they were already losing ground with the states moving towards "shall issue" concealed carry and giving citizens the ability to carry concealed weapons on their person. Most of this liberalization of citizen carry started in the early 1990s and rolled right on through into the 21st century. Today, only 20% of the nation doesn't permit public citizen carry of firearms provided they pass a background check and obtain training.
You state that the reason gun control is in retreat is because of a Republican Congress and House. This is incorrect. President Bush himself stated that he would sign a renewed Assault Weapon Ban into law if Congress had presented him with such a bill. They never did because they learned from 1996. They weren't about to make the same mistake the previous Democratic Congress had. Nor were their constituents going to let them and the ban was allowed to go out with a whimper and not even a bang since.
Furthermore, by the time the ban was due to sunset in 2004, questions were being asked as to its effectiveness. Mainly by the gun control groups to grab onto any sliver of justification they could parlay into support. It wasn't there.
The best statement on the issue comes from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in their report on the subject.
Their conclusion: In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.
In other words: The ban didn't accomplish any of the goals that were stated it was intended to accomplish.
For more excellent researched coverage: I refer you here.
I hope this answers your question on "...would ask then: What was the purpose of the temp ban and why, if it was pointless, was it instituted?".
Now, to answer a few of your other points on the issue.
I find it amusing that many who deride various types of firearms such as "assault weapons" descend into phallic references and inneundo about men needing to compensate. It's childish and doesn't win arguments. Don Kates covers this topic far better than I. I will simply ignore any such references as they detract from the discussion.
Let us briefly touch on "need".
Why is it with guns that people have to justify their "need" to own one when such criteria are not applied to any other legal consumer object?
You state "assault weapons" are high-powered weapons. No, they are not. Ask a shooter if the M-16 is high-powered and they will laugh at the comment. Seriously. The common term of derision thrown at rifles like the M-16 and AR-15 (the civilian semi-auto clone) is "poodle shooter".
If by "high powered", you mean the ability to fire many shots in a row without reloading, then perhaps you could argue that an "assault weapon" is high-powered. But that same label applies to many firearms including handguns. That term is bandied about by people who don't know much about the arms in question. If you can provide me with a idea of what you consider "high-powered", I'll be happy to reply. I just don't think you'll like the answer. I will provide a hint: "Assault weapons" are not high powered. If you would prefer a visual example, I can provide one.
As to using an "unwieldy assault weapon" to defend one's home. Why not? Dimensionally, an "assault weapon" is the same length as a shotgun or any other carbine length rifle. People have no problems working with a shotgun in a self-defense scenario.
Need is determined by circumstances, cost and desire. Trust me, given my choice in the matter, I prefer the "assault weapon".
Because pistols are a weapon of last resort, not first choice.
But pistols are used more often because they are small, easier to store and easier to shoot. The problem is they are not easy to master. Unlike rifle skills, pistol skills are perishable. A user requires regular practice or their ability suffers. Speaking from personal experience, I know this. It is very easy to go from being a good shot to a bad shot with a pistol in the space of a couple months. Pistol shooting is easy to teach but difficult to learn.
If you wish to discuss the nature of self-defense and need under such a scenario, we can.
But in the grand scheme, throwing "need" out there is a cover for "choice". Specifically, to be used to restrict or eliminate personal choice in such matters. Ultimately, that is the purpose of gun control. It isn't about guns; it's about control. The ability of the Government to control your choices in such matters.
I have restricted this to answer only a small part of your questions. My next post will cover more. It's a complex topic.
Next: #5 - John's Response to "On Assault Weapons"
The term "assault weapon" is a gun control term. It really started in 1988 with Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. Here is his famous quote on the subject:
Assault weapons - just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms - are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.This one statement reveals how the push for the 1994 ban gained momentum. It was pure and blatant dishonesty on the part of the gun control movement to capitalize on public misperceptions as to the nature of these types of rifles.
Interestingly, Sugarmann saw the outline of the law that ultimately was passed and the issues with such a law. This is revealed in the following statement from the same report:
Although the opportunity to restrict assault weapons exists, a question remains for the handgun restriction movement: How? Defining an assault weapon - in legal terms - is not easy. It's not merely a matter of going after guns that are "black and wicked looking." Although those involved in the debate know the weapons being discussed, it's extremely difficult to develop a legal definition that restricts the availability of assault weapons without affecting legitimate semi-automatic guns. Most likely, any definition would focus on magazine capacity, weapon configuration, muzzle velocity, the initial purpose for which the weapon (or its full-auto progenitor) was developed, convertibility, and possible sporting applications. Any law based on this definition would, however, need to have a clause to excuse legitimate semi-automatic weapons that would inadvertently fall under it. And although legislation could be passed that would ban specific weapons, the world's arms manufacturers are expert at producing weapons that follow the letter, but not the intent, of the law. This often results in products that are virtually identical to the restricted weapon, yet different enough to remain on the market.For the original text, visit the VPC here.
The most revealing part of his statement is this:
Defining an assault weapon- in legal terms- is not easy. It's not merely a matter of going after guns that are "black and wicked looking." Although those involved in the debate know the weapons being discussed, it's extremely difficult to develop a legal definition that restricts the availability of assault weapons without affecting legitimate semi-automatic guns.He recognized that defining an "assault weapon" was a problem since the term was not used in the common nomenclature of firearms. The proper term is "assault rifle", itself a military term. Until the late 1980s with the increasing prevalence of military-styled rifles in civilian hands did they come to the attention of groups like the VPC.
The attention placed on these rifles at the time was for two reasons: public confusion and numbers.
Public confusion we've covered.
By numbers, I mean the relative percentage of this style of rifle in civilian hands as compared to other types. Not so many people at the time owned "assault weapons". In other words, the small numbers of people affected by such legislation despite their hue and cry would not be able to deter the attempt. They were nice, juicy, niche targets. Kind of like a weak herd animal that is steered away from the pack and taken down while the majority runs away.
He also saw what the manufacturers would do in such an event of a restriction being passed based on configuration, features, etc: that the makers would obey the law to the letter and offer products functionally identical to the banned item but different enough in appearance to obey the law.
Which is exactly what happened.
Why do I quote a gun controller here? To provide you with the foundation to answer your question of why the law was passed in the first place. The answer is in the first quote and it does revolve around symbolism. Because the average citizen is unaware of the technical differences between the look-alike and the real full-auto and heavily regulated firearm, Sugarmann felt, rightly at the time, that his group and others like it could take advantage of this confusion.
The ban was a test bed law to see how the public would react to such restrictions as the first step in a broader plan. The ultimate goal, especially in the VPC's own statements, was the banning of handguns. They are the only group honest enough to come out and say their ultimate goal was the removal of handguns from the hands of civilians. The Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) was seen as a social experiment to see how far the gun control movement could go in laying the groundwork for this ultimate outcome.
The law also passed in a time when the gun control movement was in its ascendancy. The period from about 1985 to 1996 was the "golden era" of the gun control movement. Civilian machine guns had been cut out of the market in 1986, gun crime was on the rise in several areas, there were no background checks then and people were looking for answers. The gun control took advantage of this public desire for action and was certainly helped along by a variety of incidents. The attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan was one such event and brought the other major gun control group, Handgun Control, Inc., which later became the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence (BC), into being.
The movement reached its peak in the early-and-mid 1990s with the passage of the Brady Background Check bill which introduced background checks and waiting periods on gun sales and culminated with the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban. With the passage of the 1994 AWB, the gun control movement felt they were on a roll and could only continue the momentum.
Journalists agreed too as evidenced by the following:
"It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapon ban is a symbolic--purely symbolic--move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."And:
--Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, April 5, 1996
That`s why Bill Clinton told the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "The fight for the assault weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress."(From NRA-ILA and Chris Knox.)
That`s why in March 1996, 239 members of the House of Representatives voted across party lines to repeal the Clinton gun ban.
The debate is not really about so-called "assault weapons." It`s about banning guns. It`s about gun prohibitionists searching for the easiest target of opportunity. They`re going after guns that are scary-looking to many folks, claiming, without a shred of credible evidence, that these guns are the "weapons of choice" of criminals. It`s a lie. A day after Bill Clinton signed his gun-banning crime bill into law, a Washington Post editorial admitted: "Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control."
Which answers quite succinctly why the law was passed.
Unfortunately for them, the American people had other ideas.
The outcome of the passage of the 1994 AWB delivered Congress into the hands of the Republicans in 1996 for the first time in 40 years as stated by former President Bill Clinton himself. If you look at timelines, 1994 was the high point for gun control in the United States. As far as they were concerned, they were on a roll. They didn't expect what happened in 1996 and by then, they were in retreat and just didn't realize it. While the AWB was focus, they were already losing ground with the states moving towards "shall issue" concealed carry and giving citizens the ability to carry concealed weapons on their person. Most of this liberalization of citizen carry started in the early 1990s and rolled right on through into the 21st century. Today, only 20% of the nation doesn't permit public citizen carry of firearms provided they pass a background check and obtain training.
You state that the reason gun control is in retreat is because of a Republican Congress and House. This is incorrect. President Bush himself stated that he would sign a renewed Assault Weapon Ban into law if Congress had presented him with such a bill. They never did because they learned from 1996. They weren't about to make the same mistake the previous Democratic Congress had. Nor were their constituents going to let them and the ban was allowed to go out with a whimper and not even a bang since.
Furthermore, by the time the ban was due to sunset in 2004, questions were being asked as to its effectiveness. Mainly by the gun control groups to grab onto any sliver of justification they could parlay into support. It wasn't there.
The best statement on the issue comes from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in their report on the subject.
Their conclusion: In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.
In other words: The ban didn't accomplish any of the goals that were stated it was intended to accomplish.
For more excellent researched coverage: I refer you here.
I hope this answers your question on "...would ask then: What was the purpose of the temp ban and why, if it was pointless, was it instituted?".
Now, to answer a few of your other points on the issue.
I find it amusing that many who deride various types of firearms such as "assault weapons" descend into phallic references and inneundo about men needing to compensate. It's childish and doesn't win arguments. Don Kates covers this topic far better than I. I will simply ignore any such references as they detract from the discussion.
Let us briefly touch on "need".
Why is it with guns that people have to justify their "need" to own one when such criteria are not applied to any other legal consumer object?
You state "assault weapons" are high-powered weapons. No, they are not. Ask a shooter if the M-16 is high-powered and they will laugh at the comment. Seriously. The common term of derision thrown at rifles like the M-16 and AR-15 (the civilian semi-auto clone) is "poodle shooter".
If by "high powered", you mean the ability to fire many shots in a row without reloading, then perhaps you could argue that an "assault weapon" is high-powered. But that same label applies to many firearms including handguns. That term is bandied about by people who don't know much about the arms in question. If you can provide me with a idea of what you consider "high-powered", I'll be happy to reply. I just don't think you'll like the answer. I will provide a hint: "Assault weapons" are not high powered. If you would prefer a visual example, I can provide one.
As to using an "unwieldy assault weapon" to defend one's home. Why not? Dimensionally, an "assault weapon" is the same length as a shotgun or any other carbine length rifle. People have no problems working with a shotgun in a self-defense scenario.
Need is determined by circumstances, cost and desire. Trust me, given my choice in the matter, I prefer the "assault weapon".
Because pistols are a weapon of last resort, not first choice.
But pistols are used more often because they are small, easier to store and easier to shoot. The problem is they are not easy to master. Unlike rifle skills, pistol skills are perishable. A user requires regular practice or their ability suffers. Speaking from personal experience, I know this. It is very easy to go from being a good shot to a bad shot with a pistol in the space of a couple months. Pistol shooting is easy to teach but difficult to learn.
If you wish to discuss the nature of self-defense and need under such a scenario, we can.
But in the grand scheme, throwing "need" out there is a cover for "choice". Specifically, to be used to restrict or eliminate personal choice in such matters. Ultimately, that is the purpose of gun control. It isn't about guns; it's about control. The ability of the Government to control your choices in such matters.
I have restricted this to answer only a small part of your questions. My next post will cover more. It's a complex topic.
Next: #5 - John's Response to "On Assault Weapons"
No comments:
Post a Comment